Tag Archives: lenin

A good friend of mine had an epiphany a couple of days ago while pondering the global gun control issue. He found a way to summarize the entire gun control debate in one sentence:

“If all the AK47s in Libya were licensed and registered, Muammar Gaddafi would still be alive today.”

Do you like it? I do. In fact, I like it so much that I’m dedicating an a blog entry to it. It’s amazing how much meaning can be crammed into a single sentence!!

First point: the AK-47.

The most quoted and, apparently feared, firearm on the face of the planet. The Avtomat Kalashnikova selective-fire, gas operated, 7.62 x 39mm rifle was officially adopted for use by the Soviet Army in 1947. Since then, it has become a favourite for military forces around the world, due to its robust design, reliability, low cost and ease of use. AK-variant rifles are, in fact, the most widely produced assault rifle in the world [Source: Weaponomics: The Global Market for Assault Rifles; Killicoat, Phillip; WPS4202; April 2007].

The AK-47 is also incredibly popular among gun control advocates. Every time a government suggests relaxing gun control laws, the cries of “Assault rifles will be easier to get!!” are heard from coast to coast. They intentionally invoke images of madmen running loose with AK-47s, shooting anyone who happens across their path. In the minds of gun control advocates, the AK-47 is the most dangerous gun ever made and nobody should ever own it, or anything like it. They rely on the average person’s ignorance about firearms to create a state of fear and further their cause. The bottom line is that a gun is a gun is a gun. All are inert objects, the only danger comes from the person behind the trigger.

Second point: Libya.

The Arab Spring: a string of revolutions throughout North Africa and the Middle East. To mention but a few highlights, it began in Tunisia in December 2010, led to the overthrow of the Egyptian government in February 2011, and 9 months of bloody civil war in Libya. The fighting has calmed in most affected countries, but still rages unchecked in Syria.

The protests, demonstrations and revolutions that rocked the Arab world were widely hailed as positive by the Western World. They were seen as pro-democracy, the will of people, and the start of a positive new future for citizens of oppressed nations.

The hypocrisy of it all is that, while groups such as Amnesty International supported these uprisings against oppressive regimes and dictators, they continued to try to disarm the very citizens they were supporting! Now that the war has ended, the UN has become very vocal about disarming the people of Libya. They are actively working towards preventing any future generations of Libyans from having the means to fight for their freedom if the need arises again.

Libya is a fitting example for the gun control issue on another front as well. They have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Civilian gun ownership is entirely prohibited and it is also illegal to privately sell or transfer them. Despite gun ownership being illegal, civilians own nearly twice as many guns as the military and police. Civilian firearms are numbered at about 900,000, military firearms at 535,200 and police firearms at 22,000. The rate of civilian firearms ownership is 15.5 per 100 people. In comparison, in Canada, the rate of civilian firearms ownership is 23.8 per 100 people [Source: Small Arms Survey, 2007].

Let me say that again. In a country where civilian ownership of firearms is completely outlawed, the citizenry still outgun the military and police by almost 2:1!!!

To summarize, while organizations like Amnesty International fully support the revolutions of the Arab Spring, they are doing everything in their power to ensure that the people revolting are denied the very tools that they need to succeed.

Third point: Licensing and Registration

Oh boy, where do I even start on this one? This topic has been done to death so many times, I’m not sure I even want to address it again. These vary between countries, but here’s the nutshell version for Canada:

Licensing. This is the process through which a government body determines an individual’s fitness to own firearms. It essentially states that firearms ownership is illegal unless you are granted an exemption from that law by means of a license.

Registration. This ties a firearm to its owner by means of a registration certificate. The certificate contains information regarding the type of firearm (make, model, serial number, etc) and that certificate is linked to a specific firearms license holder.

They seem innocent enough on the surface, but these two puppies have been the cause of much death and destruction throughout history. Put simply, every major genocide of the twentieth century was preceded by civilian disarmament – Ottoman Turkey, USSR, China, Rwanda, Guatemala, Uganda, Germany. These confiscation schemes were all aided through systems of licensing and registration. It’s common sense really – you can’t take a gun away from a person if you don’t first know that they have it.

In some cases, Hitler and Mao for example, the introduction of the gun control laws was very methodical and a strategic part of their plans. In other cases, Rwanda and Guatemala, the existing laws were a simple and convenient means to a horrific end.

The bottom line is that the intentions of the people who enact these laws are irrelevant. What’s important is the potential for abuse and misuse of these laws in the future. Simply put, if the potential for misuse exists, it’s a bad law.

Putting it all together

Muammar Gaddafi was one of the longest reigning and perhaps one of the most well-known dictators in recent history. The reason that Muammar Gaddafi is dead is because the people of Libya had the resolve to rebel against him. The means of their rebellion was their ability to fight for their freedom through the use of privately owned firearms. The people of Libya were still armed, despite prohibitions on firearms ownership, simply because the country did not have a system of licensing and registration in place that would have allowed for wholesale confiscation. If Gaddafi had gun controls in place, he would have confiscated firearms prior to viciously crushing the resistance, making many pay the price so that he could remain alive, unchallenged and in power.

Civilian gun ownership is not about hunting or target shooting or even home defense. It is about freedom and democracy. Many gun control advocates imagine a world where only the police and the military own guns – a police state. Others imagine a world of peace where nobody needs guns. While this is a noble goal, it is not the world we currently live in. Until the causes of violence are addressed, guns will continue to be a necessary tool in our lives.

Today we are urged to pause and ponder the sacrifices of those who have gone before us. It occurred to me that our soldiers fought a war with weapons (of which type it isn’t politically correct to mention by name) to stop a dictatorial regime (whose name isn’t politically correct to mention), who’s leader disarmed the race of people (who we don’t want to offend by mentioning) by registering and licensing their weapons (which we don’t want to mention for fear of offending anyone) prior to confiscation. Once that State held a monopoly on weapons it was easy for it to accomplish its ‘cleansing.’ In fact, the twentieth century saw eight major genocides preceeded by civilian disarmament rid the world of over 150 Million civilian lives. During the World Wars, we realized that protecting innocent lives from genocide (can we mention that?) was a duty, and our brave citizens stepped up and sacrificed their lives for what we, collectively, believed.

I now wonder in this day of political correctness if there is anything we are willing to fight for. Sixty years later, in a bold denial of history, the United Nations is pushing a global Small Arms Treaty in the name of peace that will disarm civilian populations and leave a monopoly of firepower in the hands of the State – and criminal thugs (or is that redundant?) Sometimes Remembrance Day is a reminder of all we’ve forgotten.

~Keith Linton~

The above letter was written by a friend of mine in honour of Remembrance Day and submitted to several major newspapers across the country. Unfortunately, it never made it to print. I’m posting it here not just because it’s an excellent letter, but because it touches on so many points. As much as I’d like to delve into what I think of the UN and the idea of civilian disarmament, today I’m going to focus on political correctness. I think this letter is a beautifully satirical representation of what being PC has done to our society.

To put it quite bluntly, I think that political correctness is one of the biggest threats to democracy in our world today. But, ironically, it’s not politically correct to discuss political correctness.

Before I get too far ahead of myself, allow me to take a step back and define “political correctness”. It has its roots in Marxism-Leninism and has been in regular use since the 1960s. However, it didn’t become “fashionable” until the 1990s when its use exploded. The term “politically correct” was added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary in 1936, where it is defined as: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

In this age of “emotional enlightenment” when everyone is encouraged to express their feelings, we have become so oversensitive to causing offense to others, that our society has almost ground to a halt. Nobody is willing to make the difficult decisions anymore because to do so is to guarantee that somebody somewhere will have their feelings hurt.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be concerned with other people’s feelings, but political correctness has gone way too far. What began as an attempt to minimize social offense against certain minority/underprivileged groups, has evolved into a form of thought control and social engineering.

Wait a second, did I say “thought control”? Yes, I did. Political correctness doesn’t just impact the way we speak, it also affects the way we think. When we are constantly thinking about whether or not we “should” be saying something, it changes how we think in general. Instead of focussing on the ideas, we become focussed on the language being used to share those ideas.

Also, as much as our PC-trained minds tend to protest the fact, it’s no secret that some special interest groups are more equal than others, and that all special interest groups are more equal than the average citizen. So, now we’re not just arguing over language, we’re also arguing over whose offended feelings take precedence in the PC battleground that we’ve created.

And while we’re busy arguing about whether or not the language is correct or whose feelings were hurt the most, the ideas get lost in the confusion. Without the ideas, our society becomes stuck in an endless loop, forever arguing over words and feelings instead of moving forward with a purpose. Most people are oblivious to this phenomenon, but there are many who are not only aware of it, they have no qualms about using it to their own advantage (this is where the “social engineering” part comes into play)

Vocal special interest groups hoard funding and push agendas in the name of some politically correct theme, playing on people’s fears and emotions. They do this knowing it will take a brave soul to speak out against their cause. After all, who would argue for greater privacy in the face of the scourge of child pornography? Who would argue for more freedom in the battle against “terrorism?” Who will push for gun rights even as deadly gang wars are waged on our streets?

It is the favoured tactic of the manipulator to frame her cause in such a way that her detractors, with their often insightful arguments, risk an affront to the PC Gods. It doesn’t matter that those detractors may be right – political correctness has become a weapon.

So what does the letter I quoted above have to do with all of this? It all comes down to the line, “I now wonder in this day of political correctness if there is anything we are willing to fight for.”

Fear of social censure is no less damaging to a populace than fear of government/police retribution. We, as a society, have become unwilling to voice our opinions for fear of offending people. We are unwilling to fight for what we believe in because we have been taught that our ideals must always be secondary to the feelings of others. In that fear, we are no longer able to openly discuss the issues that impact our society. When we cannot openly discuss an issue, it can never be solved.

How long can we survive as a society when the important issues are ignored and swept under the rug? And how can we claim to live in a democracy when the people are unwilling and/or unable to speak their mind?